IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 46266 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

B.M.T.C., EAST DIVISION,

TTMC BUS STAND, DOMMALUR,

BENGALURU - 560066.

HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,

K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR

BENGALURU-560027.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Dig itally signed SRI. S.BABU

by THEJAS S/O SUBBARAYAPPA,

KUMAR N

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

Location: HIGH

R/O CHELUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,

COURT OF

ARABHIKOTTANURU POST,

KARNATAKA

KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562114.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. L.SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN

RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Sanjeev B.L., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.L.Shekar, counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

2. The writ petition is filed to quash the award dated

06.04.2018, passed by the Labor Court in ID No.53/2015 vide Annexure-B.

3. The short facts are these:

The respondent was working as a driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duty from 25.06.2013 without prior intimation, permission or sanction of leave. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. A call notice was issued calling upon him to report to duty. He failed to respond to the notice and the articles of charge. The disciplinary authority decided to hold an inquiry. The respondent did not participate in the inquiry to defend the charges despite being given sufficient opportunities and also publishing the inquiry notice in the Vijaya Vani newspaper.

Based on the material evidence on records, the inquiry submitted his findings holding that the charges approved. The disciplinary authority, taking note of the findings of the inquiry officer, passed an order of punishment on 06.05.2015 and dismissed the respondent from service.

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.53/2015. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court vide award dated 06.04.2018 set-aside the order of punishment and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and consequential benefits, but without back wages. The Corporation has assailed the award of the Labour Court in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

5. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labour Court requires interference.

6. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment, i.e., he was dismissed from service. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 25.06.2013 onwards.

7. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted, that should be accompanied by a Medical Certificate, if the leave is sought on health grounds.

8. An employee is under an obligation not to absent himself from work without good cause during the time at which he is required to be at work. Absence without leave is a misconduct in industrial employment, warranting disciplinary punishment. No employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right, and remaining absent without leave will constitute a violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes misconduct justifying disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of miscon